The Slog has been evoking a fair amount of vitriol of late in his determination to be equally nasty to Left, Right Wing and Centrist bigots, Warmists and Change Deniers, Zionists and Islamists, Republicans, Tea Partiers and Democrats, Seb Coe, Harriet Harman, Dan Hannan, and Boris Johnson.

He has also seen fit to point out that Ed West, Vince Cable, Frank Field, Kate Hoey, James Delingpole, John Redwood and Ron Paul are often proved right in the end.

Do you think The Slog is being secretly bankrolled by the Barclay Brothers and Unite?

I too have heard these rumours, and I am sure they are true for the simple reason that they fit my World View of this site as muddled, wishy-washy, and unable to decide which side it’s on. I should stress that the only reason I guest-blog here is that Mr Ward pays rather well and has 14,500 daily followers. His strategy of trying to please everyone is thus working, but strikes me as despicably dishonest.

In conclusion, I would say that the very homogeneity of the criticism among people like Erika, Bankrupt Taxpayer, Just Sayin’ and Abdul B’ludba’ath proves my point.

Jim O’Neill for King writes from Manchester:

Is there any truth in the lie repeated every day about China’s economy being in trouble?

As you can see, the growth in the sales of Chinese Walls has been astronomical, and reflects the fact that every bank or media combine in the world now has them as a vital defence against impertinent suggestions about devout Christians involved in laundering drugs and whitewashing phonehack enquiries. Sales of Chinese wives are also holding up well, a trend started some years back by Mr Muppet Burdock, the well-known Alzheimers victim and committee-hoodwinker.

Yes and no. On the one hand he took the heart-stopping but admirable risk of being caught bending the Libor rates. This kind of risk is precisely what the best aspects of neoconservatism are meant to be about: being morally bankrupt is, after all, a matter of opinion; whereas being financially bankrupt is deeply disgusting and must be wiped out with vigour and thoroughness, especially in Greece although not necessarily in Spain. Friedman abhorred debt but supported leveraging. We must remember that.

On the other hand, Mr Diamond quite rightly avoided the risk of lending money to every hare-brained, half-baked, revolutionary and dangerous entrepreneur who came his way. That is to say, he did not lend any money at all to entrepreneurs, and for this he is to be commended.

To understand this, we must return to the original meaning of the word ‘risk’, viz: uncertainty. Uncertainty is the root of all evil: it upsets bond markets and worries shareholders. This is why Bob did the right thing, along with many others as yet unfingered, in rigging the Libor rates, the gold price, the Lehman collapse and his immunity from prosecution. He has selflessly created certainty throughout his entire career, and history will judge him on that basis.

And finally, BubblyBorisisbangon writes from Docklands:

What do you think of all this Commie tripe about commerce ruining the Olympic Games?

There will always be the Old Labour diehards and Kennedy Democrats who disapprove of privatising the Olympic Games and clearing out all that rank amateurism of flabby athletes like Jesse Owens, Chris Brasher, and Konewumo Agama. But since they became properly sponsored (and athletes decently paid) the Games have been a model of what enlightened capitalism and marketing can do for brands, and the competitors who wear their shoes, or train with the help of globally fizzy fruit extracts that have been instrumental in teaching The World to Sing.

Few people understand this more than UK Trade & Investment Minister Lord Green, whose global ownership of Chinese Walls puts all others to shame. As Boris Johnson said two years ago, “All this Newscorp stuff is a lot of Leftie drivel, and if we don’t recognise this and go along with the odd Mexican Laundry venture, we really are going to show that Britain isn’t open for business. So stay ahead of the Olympic gridlock and don’t get caught out”.

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

34 thoughts on “Dr Conan Fuller-Bollix”

@JW: Ha-Ha. Good try but this is not true “[by] his determination to be equally nasty to Left, Right Wing and Centrist bigots, […] , Seb Coe, Harriet Harman, Dan Hannan, and Boris Johnson.”

I have already exposed several unfair attacks on the Right which are not matched by attacks on the Left. A few weeks ago you spent several days attacking Cameron and reached fever pitch when you blamed the Tory Party for the Libor rigging. Never once did you place the blame where it truly belongs: Gordon Brown and the Labour Party. Obviously that’s because you’re a Lefty yourself, so one is not surprised. {shrug}

“I have already exposed several unfair attacks on the Right which are not matched by attacks on the Left.”

Well, apologies in advance here BT, but I have read everything you have commented on in recent months (yes, I know a saddo) but you haven’t done what this says. you have on several occasions attempted to, but you haven’t made the case to me.

Of course that may well be my inadequacy but, are you certain? ( You may remember a recent discussion about ‘certainty’ and the worrying aspect attached to same.)

@Jwoo: “I have read everything you have commented on in recent months (yes, I know a saddo) but you haven’t done what this says. you have on several occasions attempted to, but you haven’t made the case to me.”

1.
I wasn’t aware that I have to make a case to you if I moan to JW about his Lefty political bias. Do I have to get prior clearance from you?

2.
What I personally write is open to interpretation by others. But according to my own records I exposed JW’s ridiculous politically-biased attack on the Tory Party for the Libor rigging scandal (others did too). I have also complained about several other unfounded attacks he’s made on the Tory Party, Tory Ministers, Tory Party members etc.
For instance, I believe his hateful attacks on Hunt are unjustified and smack of throwing as much shit about as he can in the hope some sticks. Only purpose is to discredit the Tory Party. My attempt to explain to him how Hunt probably played the BSkyB bid were ignored.

I’ve also complained about several unfair attacks on Daniel Hannan whereby he cherry picked a few words from Hannan about excessive government regulation, carefully wrapped it up in the same sentence as the unregulated banking crises to imply that Hannan was somehow against any regulation and look where that got us. JW is an ad man …he knows very well how to draw a connection in peoples’ minds.

Yesterday, he made another crude attack on Hannan by calling him an “incontinent blogger” which I complained about. Later on, he described Hannan’s blog as “half-baked ignorant twaddle from end to end.”
JW might not know it but Hannan has written several books on economics and almost certainly knows more about the subject than he will ever know.

@Jwoo: OK, I don’t need calming down and I’m not firing off at any one. Others are doing it though…check the comments.
Truth is that I didn’t spot you’d missed out a comma and your sentence could actually be taken in several ways, such is the flexibility of the English language :-)

@Just Sayin': Thanks for that interesting contribution, which I totally agree with. I will add that he has often ranted about *globalisation*, but always ignored requests to articulate what he means by it and ignoring that it is the best known way of helping developing countries, provided the trade is fair.

BT, I normally agree with a lot of what you have to say. I like the way you stick it to the Socialists and you seem to have them well sussed.

I’m surprised you are so agitated about JW digging Dave and Co out. They are not proper Tories and deserve all the flak they get. They are a bunch of stroke pullers and have proven to be no better than Labour.

@Super Sid:
I agree with you entirely. But the reason I occasionally complain to JW about his overt political bias and unfair attacks is that come election time, we will not be asked to vote for a “Radical Realism Party” that he dreams about because there isn’t one and he has no plans to create one. Therefore, we will vote for the main parties that already exist (or choose not to vote at all). My concern is that his endless (often false) criticisms of the Tory Party can only serve to raise the chances of Red Ed Milipede getting into office. I do not know if that is what JW secretly wants but it is the likely outcome of Lefty bloggers who spend their time attacking the Tory Party.

BT
‘…I exposed JW’s ridiculous politically-biased attack on the Tory Party for the Libor rigging scandal…’
Er, a bit of hubris here, BT? If it’s so obvious, as you contend, why does a topnotch investigative reporter like you need to expose it?
Look mate, clearly a brilliant career lies ahead of you as a blogger – and clearly you don’t like it here any more, because I’ve sold out to the Barclay Brothers/Unite secret axis of evil.
So get on with it….

Even Attila the Hun would have been a wimpy leftie to you BT. Why do we have to have these worthless labels? There has been plenty of slogging in Bliar and Clown’s direction but they used to be the future and are now yesterdays men and will hopefully stay that way. Most of us, like JW, are more concerned with the present and the future.

@PhilE: What we see depends on where we stand. If you see me as somehow being on the far right, then you must be standing somewhere on the Centre Left. I disagree with your comment about future/past and worthless labels etc.

@BT, I agree with what we see depends on where we stand, but I don’t see us standing in a straight line, more of an n dimensional hypervolume. Thats why I think simplistic labels like left and right are worthless and one dimensional which most human being aren’t. I am a green by inclination but also hold some what you might consider are right wing views on some issues. I have never voted socialist in my life. Apologies for my Attila the Hun quip which was not that funny. I find JW’s forthright views on many issues to my liking but not all of them, particularly Israel. There has been no way back for them since Sabra and Chatila as far as I’m concerned and I particularly admire the journalism of Robert Fisk in that respect. Don’t know where you place him. I do not agree that JW is a closet leftie.

Surely if you believe something to be wrong it does not matter,who you think is wrong,that is one of the problems that has allowed this mess to happen, back our policies on mass or you can not be a member of the club,So not enough good sound policies get passed with good sound ideas,that improve Green papers.
sorry wrong is wrong just some are more wrong than others
keep up your good work
ps i don’t agree with all you say

@BT in JW’s defense I’d guess that any bias perceived by you might simply be because it is the Tories who are now- supposedly- in power hence JW’s frustration at their utter ineptitude. There’s always the faint hope that one of them might actually read this blog and learn something from it…they are the ones in a position to act.

Andy, I agree with everything you say up to your last sentence. In case you didn’t notice, the electorate held New Labour to account just over 2 years ago and they were booted out. The useless Cameron/Osborne duo are now doing a good job of returning them to power asap, if JW doesn’t have any impact on the tory party membership and they fail to put sensible folk into power, then the electorate will have their say again and the Eds will be in. I doubt that will be much cause for rejoicing by many/any sloggers. So keep up the good work JW.

I often enjoy your contributions, but the haranging of JW over his leftist bias is complete codswallop.

“I have already exposed several unfair attacks on the Right which are not matched by attacks on the Left” – saying it does not make it so !

Personally I find that JW sticks it up and rams it home with a cucumber to all the corrupt, self aggrandising, n’er do well, clowns who like to stick it up the everyday folk – and ram it home with a cucumber :)

If you comprehend the entirety of the Blog – he is neither left nor right but just wants……….as do I, the rule of law to apply to everyone equally and for those unfortunates who do not have it so good through no fault of their own to get a fair shake, whilst those who are taking the p1ss out of the rest of us to get their come uppance (or downance if that is a word) – or I guess would just settle for them ceasing their iniquitous antics.

Cameron & clowns are currently heading up the p1ss take and have been obnoxiously before that lying their litlle socks off in order to obtain top p1ss taker of the year position. The Brown stuff and the B(loody)liar years are responsible for a lot of the issues but the continuence is unacceptable. The current crop are those who need reducing to some sort of skanky broth. Right now, this moment !

Humorously put JW but of course there is a subliminal serious side to it.

The reason I keep reading this Blog is because I believe the host when he says he is non aligned and sets out to deconstruct bollux whomever is responsible for it. I view it as inevitable that the government of the day will always come in for more stick than those not in power or control because that makes perfect sense to me. Particularly when they have proved to be a bunch of self serving, lieing two faced, privileged scumbags at least as bad as the last lot who are abouit as far removed from the Party they are supposed to be as is possible.

So, bring it on, in my view and if the more delicate amongst us cannot live with it, sobeit. Am I wrong? well I’m happy to consider the possibility, are the virulent amongst us prepared to do the same.

@Chris Loughrey: I agree with most of that. But when we’re invited to go to the ballot box, it is NOT to vote for big issues like: do we want big govt or small govt, do we want high taxes or low taxes, do we want a proper written constitution or the current stitch-up etc etc. In most of these respects all the main parties are so close you couldn’t get a fag paper between them. Yes, “they’re all the same” as very many people claim. That is what democracy does to politics.

Hoever, we ARE asked to vote for which colour fag paper we prefer: Red or Blue. The difference can be significant: Labour attempted to intro police-state ID Cards, the Tories cancelled them. Labour threw away banking regulation, the Tories would not have done that. Labour created the biggest unsustainable credit boom in history, the Tories would not have done that. Labour opened the door to uncontrolled economic migration into the UK, the Tories would not have done that. It goes on….. It comes down to which colour fag paper you prefer. JW’s political bias and attacks on the Tory Party strongly suggest he prefers the Red one. If not, why would he spend so much time (often falsely) discrediting the Blue Party?

And the fact that the Tories currently have here big chair means that they give far more opportunities to take shots at them. Granted that they haven’t committed the same sort economic and social atrocities that labour did, but give them time, they’ll just f**k it up in their own way.

Seems to me that John doesn’t take many shots at labour because they don’t really do much these days. They’re just sort of “there” and not a lot else.

John your assertion, that one’s vote is worse than meaningless (Caveat: It is flat-out meaningful to those who rigged the game by providing the system with the illusion of being legit.) is bound to evoke, in some, feelings of angst, because the assertion points out the hopelessness of the situation. Good. Hope is the snake oil sold to suckers at the traveling medicine show/cheap carnival of this faux democracy. What the ruling elite fear is the audacity of hopelessness — because that is when citizens see through the illusions created by their exploiters and rise up and destroy the house of mirrors of the status quo.
Believing you’re contributing to the greater good by the act of voting in this big money-controlled, sham democracy…is like donating your blood to a blood bank owned by vampires.
The last, best way that we, as a nation, can endure… is to challenge social convention and political boilerplate (each and every calcified cliché and soul-defying platitude) at all levels. Change arrives when heart and mind open to new understandings. There is a time-proven approach to this: Begin to admit the fact that our understandings involving ourselves and our place in the world have come to the end of the line…only an abyss yawns before us; that our actions are no longer viable, thus we must risk exposure to novelty. Naturally, grief will come with the letting go of shopworn habits and the death of cherished illusions; although, a rebirth of wonder and a renewal of vision will arrive as well.
On an historical basis, those who cling to the exhausted verities of this fading epoch will be viewed in a comparable light to those obtuse denizens of the 16th Century who refused to let go (and ruthlessly strove to make miserable — or worse — those who challenged prevailing cultural illusions) of the fallacy of the ‪Geocentric model of the universe. Like their Flat-Earther forbearers, our present day virtuosos of denial (e.g., climate change skeptics and capitalist rah-rahs) their names and their demented dogmas will, in years to come, become axiomatic of hubris, denial, and catastrophic conceit. ‬
When an individual clings to pride-petrified notions about himself, he is being held in the thrall of the viewpoint of a person who no longer exists; in the same way, when one parrots nationalistic platitudes, one dwells on a mental basis in a country that does not exists, and, in fact, never did.
The nations of the earth are teeming with people who dwell in The Land Of Never Was. (Shortly, these traits will be on grotesque, flag-waving, spandex-clad display during the coming Olympic games.)
The world is in constant flux and our understanding of it can never be wholly accurate. However, this does not mean we’re absolved from making the attempt, and we should not allow a convenient cynicism to hold us in its dismal thrall. By doing so, we diminish our lives and by extension the world.

Salford,
Re ‘a vote is meaningless’ reminds me of a quote that I like, apparently by Stalin, that goes something like this, namely, that a person who casts their vote decides nothing, but on the other hand those that count the votes they decide everything.

To BT and Andy and their fellow travellers the idea that, let us say some Libor rigging took place whilst New Labour were in power therefore they were to blame is a risible argument, are you seriously saying the banksters that rigged Libor were true Socialists?

Your blogs are one dimensional rants and pale in comparison to JW, who I frequently disagree with but admire his ability to produce readable eclectic prose in such prodigious quantity and wit.

@BT, @Andy: Complete bilge. By accusing JW of having a hidden leftist agenda (FFS) you are merely trumpeting your own. By any objective analysis of what has been written here over the last 9 months, the accusation simply doesn’t stand up.

@H…..b: There’s no bilge. Whether JW has a hidden agenda is a subjective matter. But he admitted recently to having been a Lefty and in recent times – as I’ve articulated on numerous occasions – he has falsely attacked everything/everyone to do with the Tory Party and most definitely attempted to blame them for the Libor scandal, by association, whilst making no criticisms of the Labour Party who were if office when it all happened and obviously were involved in it. I see few if any criticisms of Balls and Milipede touring the TV news studios pontificating on how Cameron should be running the economy even though Britain’s economic collapse happened as a result of their policies in government…socialists have no shame.
What conclusion is one supposed to draw from all that?

As I’ve said ad nauseum, I have no problem with him attacking the Tories for their own failings (I’ve criticised Cameron for failing to take on major reforms), but can he please not blame them for failings of the Labour Govt. It’s obviously his choice but people will draw their own conclusions from his stance.
At this moment I do not see The Slog as “non-aligned” as his banner claims. If he gets his facts straight and dishes out blame where it actually belongs, that may change. I won’t hold my breath. In the meanwhile he is trying to mock those of us who disgaree with him with crude side-swipes and malformed names. {shrug}